LexGORKHA RAM AND OTHERS versus THE CUSTODIAN GENERAL OF INDIA, DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 151 contains a non obstante clause on the same lines as I96I s. 38 of the Rent Control Act. The result therefore would be that the provisions of the special enactment, Jyoti Pershad as the Act is, will in respect of the buildings in areas Adminis;;ator fo• declared slum areas operate in addition to the Rent n, Union Terri· Control Act. The argument therefore that the Act is '°'Y of Delhi inapplicable to buildings covered by the Rent Control Act is without substance, particularly when it is seen Ayyangar J. that it is only when a decree for eviction is obtained thats. 19 of the Act comes into play. We therefore consider that none of the points urged in support of the petition has any substance. The petitions fail and are dismissed. In the circum- stances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. GORKHA RAM AND OTHERS v. THE CUSTODIAN GENERAL OF INDIA, DELHI (K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Evacuee Property-Moslem non-proprietor migrating to Pakis- tan-Village dwelling house, if vests in Custodian-· Administration of Evacuee Property Act, r950 (]I of r950), s. I8(r)-V illage wajib-u!-arz. The wajib-ul-arz of village Buland, teshil and district Rohtak, provided as follows:- "No non-proprietor can settle in the village or build a house without the consent of the owner of the estate. When- ever anybody settles, he obtains land or house from the pro- prietor of the same and he can live there so long as he pleases. Whenever he abandons the village, if the house belongs to the Shamlat of.. .......... lt falls into the possession of the proprie- tor ......... About the houses of non-proprietors ......... tbere is no customary righ_t to ~ell or mortgage residential houses, remove the material or build burnt brick house without the consent of the proprietor ......... If any person dies heir less his house reverts April 2z. 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] 1961 to the possession, of the proprietor of the estate in which it is situate", and mentioned the mendicants as a type of non-pro- Gorkha Ram prietors settled in the village. One F, a Muslim belonging to v. that class, migrated to Pakistan. The appellants, who were Custodian General proprietors, took possession of his dwelling house. The Custo- of India, Delhi dian of Evacuee Property claimed it as evacuee property. The appellants' objection was finally dismissed by the Custodian General who held that the house was evacuee property and vested in the Custodian. The High Court dismissed the appel- lants' petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution holding that the right of a non-proprietor to occupy a village site was a right in property and vested in the Custodian when the non-proprietor became an evacuee. In this Court, while the appellants relied on the wajib-ul-arz, on behalf of the respondents reliance was placed on s. 18 of the Administration of Evacuee Pro- perty Act. Raghubar JJayal ]. Held, that s. 18(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Pro- perty Act, 1950, contemplated tenants, whether occupancy tenants or tenants for a certain time and applied only to the occupancy rights of a tenant. Under the wajib-ul-arz, however, a non-proprietor could have no such right in the site occupied by him as would make him a tenant of it. Section l8(r) of the Act, therefore, had no application and the house in question reverted to the proprietors under the pro- visions of the wajib-ul-arz when the non-proprietor abandoned the village and migrated to Pakistan. It could not, therefore, vest in the Custodian. It was not correct to say that under the wajib-ul-arz that F's interest in the house was that of a lessee. · Associated Hotels of India v. R. N. Kapur, [1960] l S.C.R. 368, held inapplicable, CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 340of1958. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated July 3, 1953, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ Application No. 256 of 1952. Jwala Parshad Chopra and J. K. Hiranandani, for the appellants. Nanak Chand, R.H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for res- pondents Nos. 1 to 3. 1961. April 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the Punjab High Court 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 153 dismissing the petition of the appellants under r96r Ardt. 226fofhthCe Conds~itution praying for quashing 9 th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.